PAF airpower for ANA?

[That Guy]

With NATO going home the ANA is going to lose its biggest tool against insurgency, the precision strikes and air intelligence i.e drones.

Hoping that Ashraf Ghani will seek deeper counterinsurgency cooperation with Pakistan and would prove to be a friend unlike Karzai, we should offer ANA the air cover it won't have nor would be able to build anytime soon.

If Kabul agrees, there can be a 'joint' COIN strategy as per which the Afghan and Pakistani SOF can be operated in coordination against mutual threats, since the insurgency is likely to expand.

PAF's F-16C/D Block52+ fleet carries more fuel in Conformal Fuel Tanks which gives it ~30% more range and increased loiter time. PAF also operates UAV which can loiter for 12 hours.

We face a mutual threat from insurgents and drug runners. If Afghanistan is willing to coop, should we extend per request air strikes for ANA or not? - pros and cons?

Stay civil and discuss.

Realistically, it's not going to happen, and no one should expect it too, even if Ghani ends up in power. The ANA is an entity on it's own, that cares little for what the Afghan government or Afghan people want. It is to this day the Northern Alliance in spirit, so any chance of cooperation between the ANA and PA is bleak.

Now, if it did happen, what would be the pros and cons?

pros

-closer cooperation between PA and ANA.
-Lowering of tension.
-Reducing Indian influence within the ANA.
-A boarder and more comprehensive strategy to target militants.

cons

-Pissing off Afghan militants that were (at the very least) indifferent towards Pakistan.
-Giving nationalists in Afghanistan a bigger excuse to target Pakistan (they'll claim Pakistan is interfering in Afghan affairs).
-Afghan Refugees created from PAF strikes may end up becoming a legitimate responsibility of Pakistan (they'll have the higher moral ground).
-Making Afghanistan dependent on Pakistan (economic and military wise, which Pakistan cannot afford).


Now, of course there are just a few examples, it's really more complicated than this, but these are just the basic ones that we should consider.

 

[Viper0011.]

Orangzaib, the dynamics of America's war would have been drastically different if the battlefield was Maxico instead of Afghanistan. I think, this will put some perspective on our limitations. Lastly, religion was, is and will remain a currency in our part of the world.

I understand the cultural and religious sensitivities that exist there. However, if once or twice, a terrorist training camp was destroyed across the border, the message will be taken loud and clear. India gave that message to you guys that there will be war the next time anything like 26/11 happens. I think it was well understood. Similarly, Afghanistan needs to know that the 50+ "cultural centers" need to NOT become terrorist training camps. That would result in surgical strikes. When that message it taken and there is some actions, you'd be surprised. You can't play "nice" with these barbaric terrorists.

 

[user1]

Let the Afghans do what they do best - Unite & fight off an Invader & once the Invader leaves.....Fight amongst each other to the terrible ruin of their country & their people !

Would it not put us in the same condition as we are now?

Isn't it the agenda of 'Empire of Chaos' to perpetuate the chaos?

Isn't it the sad reality that at the time of supposed 'Afghan Endgame' we still feel so threatened that we are building a fence?

Will those 9800 troops - JSOC operatives among them - will just sit there doing nothing of what they have been doing previously? Is there a surety that those 9800 US troops will leave by the end of 2016?

Will the drone attacks stop? If Afghan Taliban make some sort of 'Emirate' in Southern Afghanistan, then, in all likelihood drones will be used to extreme on those areas.

Situation is so fluid that I am unable to guess any further!

Afghanistan is more dependent upon Pakistan than it is upon India, so, if USA really leaves then there will be a chance to cut Indian presence to it's size there. Afghans will also be able to understand that as all of their transit trade depends upon Pakistan.
Until then,
There is only one thing about which I am certain and that is to take out all anti-Pakistan elements through proxies.

 

[Donatello]

JF-17s stationed at Peshawer are more than enough to go inside and bomb Afghanistan's talibunnies. Call the Mirage RPs for recon. If needed to be done, we have more than enough assets to strike in Afghanistan.

Realistically, it's not going to happen, and no one should expect it too, even if Ghani ends up in power.

Now, if it did happen, what would be the pros and cons?

pros

-closer cooperation between PA and ANA.
-Lowering of tension.
-Reducing Indian influence within the ANA.
-A boarder and more comprehensive strategy to target militants.

cons

-Pissing off Afghan militants that were (at the very least) indifferent towards Pakistan.
-Giving nationalists in Afghanistan a bigger excuse to target Pakistan (they'll claim Pakistan is interfering in Afghan affairs).
-Afghan Refugees created from PAF strikes may end up becoming a legitimate responsibility of Pakistan (they'll have the higher moral ground).
-Making Afghanistan dependent on Pakistan (economic and military wise, which Pakistan cannot afford).


Now, of course there are just a few examples, it's really more complicated than this, but these are just the basic ones that we should consider.

There cannot be a close cooperation b/w ANA and PA. Cooperation is built on trust. and ANA cannot be trusted as routinely they have sheltered Taliban militants, and we have to be vary of their Indian influence. Not to mention that a lot of the taliban who gave up fighting after US invasion, ended up in ANA anyway. Yesterday's bombing in Afghanistan shows how precarious their policing structure is.

 

[qamar1990]

With NATO going home the ANA is going to lose its biggest tool against insurgency, the precision strikes and air intelligence i.e drones.

Hoping that Ashraf Ghani will seek deeper counterinsurgency cooperation with Pakistan and would prove to be a friend unlike Karzai, we should offer ANA the air cover it won't have nor would be able to build anytime soon.

If Kabul agrees, there can be a 'joint' COIN strategy as per which the Afghan and Pakistani SOF can be operated in coordination against mutual threats, since the insurgency is likely to expand.

PAF's F-16C/D Block52+ fleet carries more fuel in Conformal Fuel Tanks which gives it ~30% more range and increased loiter time. PAF also operates UAV which can loiter for 12 hours.

We face a mutual threat from insurgents and drug runners. If Afghanistan is willing to coop, should we extend per request air strikes for ANA or not? - pros and cons?

Stay civil and discuss.

of course we should, we will also be able to go after the people we want this way…

 

[That Guy]

JF-17s stationed at Peshawer are more than enough to go inside and bomb Afghanistan's talibunnies. Call the Mirage RPs for recon. If needed to be done, we have more than enough assets to strike in Afghanistan.




There cannot be a close cooperation b/w ANA and PA. Cooperation is built on trust. and ANA cannot be trusted as routinely they have sheltered Taliban militants, and we have to be vary of their Indian influence. Not to mention that a lot of the taliban who gave up fighting after US invasion, ended up in ANA anyway. Yesterday's bombing in Afghanistan shows how precarious their policing structure is.

Which is why I said "it's not going to happen".

 

[Donatello]

Which is why I said "it's not going to happen".

Exaclty, so just bomb them.

 

[That Guy]

Exaclty, so just bomb them.

Who, the ANA? Yeah, not going to happen either. The last thing Pakistan Army wants is to be blamed for destroying a foreign country and it's security forces.

 

[MilSpec]

A bunch of A-29s and old mi-35s .. the offensive capability of afghan airforce.. in future.

They have been through long wars and tyrannical rule, why make fun of their limited capabilities....

There cannot be a close cooperation b/w ANA and PA. Cooperation is built on trust. and ANA cannot be trusted as routinely they have sheltered Taliban militants, and we have to be vary of their Indian influence. Not to mention that a lot of the taliban who gave up fighting after US invasion, ended up in ANA anyway. Yesterday's bombing in Afghanistan shows how precarious their policing structure is.

The highlighted part suggest's deja vu ...

I hope that pakistan won't infringe upon the sovereignty of afghanistan, as pakistani army has this weird understanding of good taliban and bad taliban.... This debate on PAF air power seems to be heading eventually to calling unilateral strikes against Afghanistan. But then again that is your bilateral matter.

 

[Indus Falcon]

You can't just go nutts on others because you have the military might. There is a civilized process even resulting in eventual brute-force. The democratic government is responsible to its people, the military isn't. Take a look at Iraq and Libya who had military dictators, what did they accomplish for their people? Nothing!! The civil government builds a national case to get public support. If that doesn't exist, what's the point in showing off force when your own public will provide safe heavens to the terrorists even after the attack? That's where the Civil government comes in and that's why the military salutes a civil premier no matter how a civilian government chose to run a country. It's the civilian government's responsibility to provide public support to the military so that people avoid what had happened, what would cause the same issue to relapse again and that they support the lives being lost. Hope you understand. Countries aren't run by militaries. They are run through the vote

Nobody is going nuts, the civilized process has already run it's course. With the loss to the exchequer and the inflow of drugs, it's high time we mine and seal the border. But whenever push comes to shove on this particular issue, the civilian govt pushes it over to the military ,and the military does the same. The previous civilian govt and the current civilian govt both have proven themselves to be inept at taking any serious steps, so who should then take the initiative? Or should we wait for the situation to get from bad to worse?

Exaclty, so just bomb them.

Hope you mean the border areas? That actually is not a bad idea, turn it into a NO-GO area!!

Terrorism isn't the only headache being exported from Afghanistan, Drugs is another headache we can't seem to be dealing with effectively.

Where is @Xeric when you need him?

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

They have been through long wars and tyrannical rule, why make fun of their limited capabilities....

Go the the ANSF thread in the Afghan Defence section, and you will see the ANA of today.
10 times better equiped than your joke army
10 times more physical superior than your joke army
and better trained.

The highlighted part suggest's deja vu ...

I hope that pakistan won't infringe upon the sovereignty of afghanistan, as pakistani army has this weird understanding of good taliban and bad taliban.... This debate on PAF air power seems to be heading eventually to calling unilateral strikes against Afghanistan. But then again that is your bilateral matter.

Haqqanis are also being targetted... so much for the good talib-bad talib conspiracy.

 

[Cheetah786]

With NATO going home the ANA is going to lose its biggest tool against insurgency, the precision strikes and air intelligence i.e drones.

Hoping that Ashraf Ghani will seek deeper counterinsurgency cooperation with Pakistan and would prove to be a friend unlike Karzai, we should offer ANA the air cover it won't have nor would be able to build anytime soon.

If Kabul agrees, there can be a 'joint' COIN strategy as per which the Afghan and Pakistani SOF can be operated in coordination against mutual threats, since the insurgency is likely to expand.

PAF's F-16C/D Block52+ fleet carries more fuel in Conformal Fuel Tanks which gives it ~30% more range and increased loiter time. PAF also operates UAV which can loiter for 12 hours.

We face a mutual threat from insurgents and drug runners. If Afghanistan is willing to coop, should we extend per request air strikes for ANA or not? - pros and cons?

Stay civil and discuss.

ANA is involved in anti Pakistan activities through out Pakistan why should we help them.

 

[Viper0011.]

it's high time we mine and seal the border. But whenever push comes to shove on this particular issue, the civilian govt pushes it over to the military ,and the military does the same. The previous civilian govt and the current civilian govt both have proven themselves to be inept at taking any serious steps, so who should then take the initiative? Or should we wait for the situation to get from bad to worse?

I don't understand why havn't you mine the border and or seal it with a fence at least? Civilians will know not to cross the fence as its mined. The terrorist will try to cross it and that's when they'll get killed.
The civilian government has issued the order and that's why you see the operation. If the military was THAT independent, it would've happened a long time ago. Military again in power means Pakistan will go back to 80's and probably will never become a good strong economy. I can pretty much assure you of that much and the military knows it too. Even in the US, our military leaders would do everything with firepower but they have to get orders from the civilian commander-in-chief. That's where the buck stops, a civilian premier.

 

[MilSpec]

Haqqanis are also being targetted... so much for the good talib-bad talib conspiracy.

Are we forgetting Air lift of Konduz now?

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

Are we forgetting Air lift of Konduz now?

Yeah tht and the martians...